Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan have been locked in a political/diplomatic impasse over the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for the better part of the last decade, ever since the East African nation launched the realization of a gravity Dam on the Blue Nile river, a major tributary of the Nile River, the most important international river in Africa and arguably the most iconic of rivers in the whole world.
The Hydropower plant is located in the Benishangul-Gumuz regional state, only 15km east of the border with Sudan. At over 6 Gigawatts of capacity, when completed, the hydroelectric plant is expected to become the biggest in Africa, instantaneously doubling the power generation capacity of the country and able to provide clean power to the over 65% of the Ethiopian rural communities. However, since its inception, the GERD was predicted to impose a range of multifaceted challenges. In fact, due to this rather sensitive nature, during the research and brainstorming face of the project, the government preferred to simply call it Project x and keep details tightly wrapped, away from the public’s eyes and ears.
Predictably, any construction project on the Blue Nile, which contributes over 80% of the waters of the Nile, considered the lifeline of the Sudan and Egypt, is a thorny subject that is naturally met with strong resistance and opposition by these two downstream nations that for millennia have bilaterally enjoyed unchallenged benefits.
As immediately as the project was publicly launched and work commenced for the construction of the dam and reservoir back in 2011, we were able to observe staunch, uncompromising opposition by the Egyptian leaders and the local Egyptian media. A more conservative/diplomatic approach and position of concern and perplexity were reflected by the Sudanese side. However, at home, it was immediately clear that the project was unanimously supported by the general public.
In fact, the project was met with an enthusiasm almost immediately as it was domestically seen as the reflection of Ethiopia’s renaissance and ascension to its former glory. For millennia Ethiopians have had deep sentiments of sorrow and regret over the beloved Abay, which flows through tight valleys and inhospitable terrains benefitting the faraway lands of the Pharos while the motherland suffered cyclical droughts. The Blue Nile is a river that is deeply engraved in the collective psyche of the Ethiopian people. Countless poems have been written, anecdotes told, songs sang, all with a common theme revolving around one main issue: the generational regret of not benefitting from the mighty Blue Nile.
The Ethiopian government needed not to work too hard to entice the people to donate to the project as ordinary Ethiopians contributed financially as they viewed it as a personal way of leaving a legacy for future generations. This was especially important as the project was fully self-financed in light of the lack of funds from foreign actors who chose not to support Ethiopia fearing the wrath and retaliation of Egypt. Thus the project’s progress continued for many years under the motto “We started it, we will accomplish it”.
The normally divided public opinion and interest was finally unified by sentiments of patriotism towards the realization of this project. The government on his part worked hard to keep the momentum of favorable public opinion alive with media campaigns, documentaries, consultations, etc. I can’t say I have witnessed a more fiercely supported project or initiative launched by the Ethiopian government in the past two decades.
However, as time passed and as the project encountered difficulties such as serious delays in completion accompanied by allegations of corruption and public fund misuse that culminated in the arrest of several high profile figures and the cancellation of contracts given to the military conglomerate In charge of electromechanical works, (METEC) the general public was left incredulous, fatigued and disappointed.
After what was a very public and scandalous case against high profile individuals in charge of the construction of the GERD, quickly followed up by the very candid remarks and admissions of the then freshly swore in Prime minister, who stated quite bluntly stated that the project was in serious peril as it was short on funds and already years behind schedule, almost immediately, serious efforts were made by the then-incoming administration to revamp the public’s morale and garner the continued support needed for the completion of the project more expeditiously and transparently.
The then remarks by the Premier were met with mixed review as some expressed their anger and disappointment towards the alleged culprits and others saw it as a sign of diminished commitment by the new administration towards a flagship project in which the entire nation has poured sweat, blood, and bone. One thing was immediately clear: the Ethiopian people were not willing to take any enemy prisoners when it came to the issue of the GERD and that they demanded to see it finalized.
Thus, in the months leading to the now postponed elections due to Covid-19, the government’s position has been increasingly more assertive towards the swift finalization of the GERD reflecting the public’s wish. Observable efforts were made to revamp and galvanize the fundraising efforts and government officials and media have refocused their attention over the issue of the GERD once again as it remains a crucial agenda that can garner the public’s support that the leading party hopes to get in the not so distant future at the polling stations.
On another note, the current sociopolitical situation in Egypt also seems to be as complex and difficult as it is in Ethiopia. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, an ex-army strong man who came to power after the long period of turmoil ensued in the country due to the Arab spring is also seen as keen to solidify his government’s position by garnering support from the Egyptian people around an existential issue such as the Nile waters.
Although so far the confrontation has only occurred on the diplomatic battlefield, it is important to note that the two countries have in the past few years heavily invested in military tech and hardware allegedly because of fears of a possible but highly unlikely military confrontation.
According to the website “military watch magazine,” while the Egyptians have invested in modern aircraft and attack submarines, the Ethiopian side has reportedly strengthened and modernized its position by acquiring air defense capabilities such as the Russian made Pantsir-S1 vehicle-mounted air defense system. One can construe that these moves do not occur in a vacuum and that that the two governments are making preparations for a hopefully unlikely and decisively unnecessary and potentially very destructive military confrontation scenario.
Egypt’s position over the waters of the Nile has for ages been the uncompromising belief that the river is a gift from the heavens thanks to which its 5,000.00-yearold civilization was made possible. Egyptians argue that because their country is comprised mostly of desert, they are naturally inclined to see any attempt to challenge their monopolistic control over the River as an existential threat. In fact, successive Egyptian leaders have famously warned war over the waters of the Nile, sometimes in thinly veiled manners, other times quite bluntly.
The Ethiopian camp on the contrary argues that the nation has a God-given right to develop economically. On its quest to get out of poverty and become a regional economic and political superpower, Ethiopia needs cheap, green, reliable electric power. The country’s budding industry needs increasingly more electricity as do so the millions of Ethiopians especially in rural areas who are still forced to dwell in the darkness at night.
Besides, the position of Ethiopia also underpins the fact that hydroelectric dams do not per se consume water but just use it to generate power through electro-mechanical means and restitute the water back to the river, a rather uncontestable truth since the dam is not viable to be used for irrigation and other agricultural purposes. The positions of the two countries could not have been more opposed.
Experts and analysts have for decades warned that the wars of the 21st centuries would be fought over water as this precious resource is getting ever scarcer and less available especially in semi-arid areas of the world due to factors such as an increase in population, sub-optimal water management, pollution, and according to some due to climate change.
These analysts have long identified the Nile River as a major source of tension and potentially military confrontation between upstream and downstream countries.
Egypt and Sudan, the two downstream countries, have for decades enjoyed exclusive rights over the use of the waters of the river due to a position of hegemony emanating from colonial-era treaties reinforced by the occasional threat and sabotage due to Egypt’s superior economic and arguably military standings.
However, during the past one and half decades the horn of Africa and in general sub-Saharan Africa has gone through unprecedented socio-economic changes mostly positively due to steady economic growth, more stable political climates, almost universal access to basic education and thanks to the increasingly connected and globalized present world.
Thus, historically weaker and poorer upstream nations such as Ethiopia and others have started to advance their claim at what has been perceived internally as the imposition of a colonial-era treaty in favor of Egypt and Sudan over the rights of use of an international river monopolized so far by an Arab nation at the cost of the interests of black African nations who are no longer able and willing to shoulder this injustice.
Thus, it is easy to see that the standoff over the GERD and the Nile is not merely political and economic, but also a battleground of two civilizations with different ideologies, roots and cultures that have been going at it for centuries if not millennia ever since the times of the Pharos and the Axumite Kings.
Egyptians often claim that the Nile is the lifeline of their millennia’s old civilianization, but at the same time, it is important to remember that Ethiopia also boasts very old traditions of civilization, art, architecture and culture. In fact, Ethiopians pride themselves as the cradle of ancient black civilization and culture, in addition to the pride that comes with being the only black African nation to never be colonized. These are reasons in my opinion which one cannot easily overlook when analyzing the issue of the standoff over the Nile.
Moreover, recently, after Ethiopia’s very public refusal to continue negotiations facilitated by the US treasury department and the World Bank who first agreed to act as observers but later somehow assumed the roles of mediators and adjudicators, the diplomatic dispute between the two countries went on to assume yet another dimension. After the negotiations stalled because of Ethiopia’s temporary withdrawal for further internal consultations, both representatives of the Ethiopian and Egyptian community living in the US and elsewhere were quick to lend their support to the respective camps in what seems to be an international public opinion-shaping effort online.
Almost immediately after Ethiopia’s temporary withdrawal from the US mediated discussions, the Arab League, in which Egypt is not only a member but a leading figure as well, was quick to denounce Ethiopia’s refusal to continue negotiations until it finalized the said internal discussions. However other international figures and individuals, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson, the famed African American human rights activist were quick to express approval of Ethiopia’s position and the disapproval of President Trump’s administration’s moves that appeared to be close to Egypt. Other international organizations such as the AU recommended moderation and the reopening of the tripartite negotiations.
Political analysts think that President Trump only sees Ethiopia as a pawn to be sacrificed to appease an important ally in the Arab world such as Egypt that can have strategic and invaluable importance in delivering his “deal of the century” peace plan for the Israeli-Palestine issue. A way to get Egypt on board in his quest to become the President that has finally brought long term stability and peace in the problematic Middle East region. It seems that the US wants to leverage the GERD issue to get all the necessary assistance from Egypt regarding the peace deal it hopes to broker between the Arabs and the Israeli.
Although Ethiopia is a long term institutionalized partner of the United States with a huge role to play in the superpower’s horn of Africa strategy, in the International chess game of power and influence, the lesser pawns are always sacrificed to achieve the greater objective, which arguably translates into Ethiopia having secondary importance when it comes to the United States’ greater objective.
The issue of the Nile has now assumed international importance and is transcending the political sphere. It can be said that the dispute puts two ideologies and cultures in confrontation and on the way divides the international public’s opinion between those who have Arab heritage and those with a black African heritage.
The events of the past few months, however, from a political and public opinion points of view, without a doubt have turned the tide in Ethiopia’s favor as Egypt, by calling on Washington’s help to mediate and by immediately signing an agreement conjured up by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin in a document believed not hold Ethiopia’s best interest, has inadvertently portrayed itself as the neighborhood bully, while Ethiopia has assumed the position of the underdog that is trying to stand up to injustice. History shows that everybody loves an underdog’s story.
Things being the way they are, I think that it is in the best interest of Ethiopia to continue riding the wave of mostly favorable international opinion and media portrayal by focusing on the issue at hand and highlighting the need to develop but also by showing beyond doubt the willingness to abide by international law along with the eagerness to return to the negotiating table.
Domestically, I think the roles of the media and the public discussion should not be of inciting simplistic nationalistic sentiments in the citizens, but that of indepth, careful analysis and understanding of the issue and the critical points at the heart of the opposing camps viewpoint. We need to understand our adversary’s positions to progress in negotiations and reach long term, stable and peaceful settlements. As Sun Tzu stated, in any confrontation, to prevail and reach victory, we first need to know ourselves and our capability, along with the enemy and its capabilities in addition to the terrain of the battlefield. These words still hold true.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, our local media (both independent and governmental outputs) have so far advanced a narrative that is too much one-sided and a little too combative. Undoubtedly our long tradition of free and proud people who fended for themselves for centuries is a great source of inspiration and pride but at the same time, we need to recognize that these are different times and that our newfound regional influence and reliance on International diplomacy can be of much more help here rather than our military prowess’s that can be a bit of an overkill for a thankfully diplomatically resolvable issue.
Additionally, it is important to remember that decision-makers in the government do not operate in a vacuum as they are heavily influenced by the news cycle and public opinion which in turn have a very important effect on negotiations. Too much combative rhetoric in the news cycle can lead to dangerous ultra-nationalistic sentiments that can make it difficult to find a peaceful and reasonable resolution to the diplomatic standoff. Often in such situations, negotiators can become too entrenched and decide to forgo necessary concessions by assuming uncompromising positions due to the fear of the public’s retaliation at the ballot box and another short term internal political implications. As a friend of mine once said “It is never a good sign when one negotiating party goes home too happy and the other unhappy as such a deal is not destined to last long”.
As our country gets back to the table to negotiate with a hopefully more accommodating and reasonable counterpart and a more impartial mediator, our leaders should do their utmost best to find diplomatic solutions for a problem that cannot be otherwise solved. Thus, it is in the best interest of the media in the two countries and also in Sudan to reflect accurate, fair and temperate information and stop with the bellicose rhetoric.
Recognizing our respective concerns on both sides, we need to make it clear that our ambitions and our natural rights to rise out of the grip of poverty will not indeed be at the cost of an existential threat to the people of Egypt but rather on sentiments of cooperation and respect.
This arduous convincing job is left to the negotiating team and our leaders, but our media and society at large have the responsibility not to opinion entrenched and bellicose points of views but rather encourage the executive to continue the tripartite discussions, engage in robust diplomacy and most of all show empathy to the other side while simultaneously safeguarding the national interests of Ethiopia.
Editor’s Note: The writer can be reached at dawitsopinions@gmail.com
The Ethiopian herald June 9,2020
BY DAWIT TESFAY
